World’s single largest offshore wind farm

Jeremy Wraith writes:

Danish renewable energy firm Orsted said Wednesday it will build the world’s single largest offshore wind farm off Britain’s eastern coast

“will demand huge subsidies from UK householders and taxpayers, and which will require a reliable back-up power generation system”

I cannot for the life of me understand the thinking behind the massive wind farm order. This is an intermittent power source, which will demand huge subsidies from UK householders and taxpayers, and which will require a reliable back-up power generation system when it is producing little or no electricity. Apart from being unreliable offshore wind farms are a blight on the landscape and are a massive hazard to bird life. It is also being built by a Danish company which will increase our existing massive total balance of payments deficit with the EU which has already cost us over £2 trillion.

“The alternative is to invest heavily in Rolls Royce SMR’s, which can be operated continuously”

The alternative is to invest heavily in Rolls Royce SMR’s, which can be operated continuously (except for maintenance periods) and which are designed and made in the UK by the world-renowned UK manufacturer. In addition, SMRs provide the same energy output pa at a lower capital cost than wind farms. Also, 370,000 miles of new HV cables and overhead lines, must be installed to connect remote wind and solar farms. The reactors in RN submarines are expected to last for over 30 years, compared with a 20-year typical life span for a wind turbine and 40,000 UK jobs will be created during development & commissioning of SMRs – leaving us independent in spares & back up. Once these are fully developed and operational, they would provide excellent export potential, thereby earning the UK valuable foreign funds.

The proposal suggests a death wish for UK design and manufacturing, a policy shared by many parties.  So, in the next general election please do consider this when voting.

Image: Rob Farrow / Offshore windfarm, Skegness / CC BY-SA 2.0

NET ZERO POLICY: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the PM asking what justifies retaining the net zero policy. 

“net zero policy is catastrophically damaging the UK economy and destroying the normal lives and freedoms of all UK citizens”

To Mr R Sunak
Prime Minister
10th Dec 2023

Dear Sir

Please note that this FOI is in the public interest as the net zero policy is catastrophically damaging the UK economy and destroying the normal lives and freedoms of all UK citizens, (e.g. abolition of our petrol and diesel powered cars, 15 minute cities, imposition of smart meters, massive costs of green energy subsidies, lack of reliable power generation, etc., etc.)

1 What information do you have which justifies retaining the net zero policy imposed upon the UK by the pernicious EU?

2 What information do you have that negates that the increasing CO2 from the start of the industrial revolution to the present day has had a negligible effect on increasing global temperature?

 3 What information do you have which proves that the man made CO2 produced by the UK from the start of the industrial revolution to the present day has created any damage to the world environment?

4 What information do you therefore have that justifies giving £1.6 BILLION of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund?

“What information do you have, and can list, that defines EXACTLY what damage the UK’s CO2 emissions since the 1830’s have supposedly caused other countries”

5 What information do you have, and can list, that defines EXACTLY what damage the UK’s CO2 emissions since the 1830’s have supposedly caused other countries, and which you are using to justify paying huge “reparations” using UK taxpayers money?

6 What information do you have on any cost benefit analysis carried out by the government to prove that giving £1.6 BILLION of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate fund is more beneficial to the UK taxpayers than using that money to repair crumbling concrete in our schools, universities, museums etc.? Especially when the £1.6 BILLION has to be borrowed and when we already have an enormous public debt of well over £2.5 TRILLION, costing every UK household over £2,000/annum just service the interest?

I look forward to receiving your responses to this FOI request.

Jeremy Wraith

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Information request to the PM and Treasury on repealing EU imposed laws.

Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the PM and Treasury asking why we are not repealing EU imposed laws.

To Mr Rishi Sunak, Mr Jeremy Hunt and John Glen

“As a result, after 47 years trading with the EEC/EU our total BOP is currently now, a DEFICIT (LOSS) costing us well over £2 trillion and still rising. Is that such a good deal?”

REPEALING EU IMPOSED LAWS

I understand that the proposal to scrap as many of the 4,000+ laws imposed on the UK by the EU has been shelved. The Conservative Party was responsible for the UK joining the EU in the first place on the massive and deliberate lie that our sovereignty would not be affected. The Conservative Party has lied, lied and lied again to the UK public on the so called “benefits” of EU membership ever since and for over 50 years.

Membership of the EU has been a total disaster for the UK, not only politically, but economically as well. For example:

  1. When we joined the EEC in 1973 we had a virtually zero balance of payments (BOP) with the EEC. From day 1 the EEC/EU took over all our trade policy as they believed they were more “competent”! As a result, after 47 years trading with the EEC/EU our total BOP is currently now, a DEFICIT (LOSS) costing us well over £2 trillion and still rising. Is that such a good deal?
    So, why do you want to keep so many EU imposed laws and make our BOP even worse?
    (NB Over the same period we made a SURPLUS, on our trade with the rest of the world. This surely proves where our best interests are!)
  2. In addition, being in the EU when we left could have cost our economy well over £200 billion/annum. The total accumulated cost of being in the EEC/EU for 47 years could therefore have cost our economy well over £13.22 TRILLION. That figure is still going up by your senseless and stupid decision to keep the laws in question.
    So, why do you want to keep the EU imposed laws which must STILL be costing our economy £ billions/annum?
    NB Two examples spring to mind.
    • The CPC for lorry drivers which probably takes about 1,000 lorry drivers off the roads and must cost our businesses and consumers a fortune. How much exactly? Why has it not been scrapped?
    • In addition, Royal Mail was denied it’s right to deliver all mail in the UK as the EU demanded, that postal deliveries must be opened to “competition”. This was obviously a “front” to enable EU postal services to take over mail deliveries in the UK as part of the EU’s asset stripping policy of UK businesses. The monopoly of Royal Mail to deliver all mail in the UK must be restored ASAP as UK consumers are probably still subsiding foreign postal companies.
  3. We also lost over £100 billion in our fishing rights which were taken over by the EU.
    So why have we still allowed EU countries fishing rights after we left and continued to destroy our fishing industry and the livelihoods of our fishermen and great fishing ports like Brixton, Grimsby and Hull?
  4. A report by Bob Lyddon, of Lyddon Consulting Services Limited and published by the Bruges Group as “The UK’s liabilities to the financial mechanisms of the European Union” shows that the EU’s financial institutions can call on the UK to contribute up to nearly £1 trillion in the event of a financial crisis. In addition, the EU could call for “extraordinary support” above that!
    So, are we STILL committed to saddle UK taxpayers with the liability of supporting bankrupt EU countries like Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Portugal and their banks when they go bust and by how much?
  5. Why are we STILL in the ECHR which is a political entity apparently dedicated to frustrating UK policy at every opportunity. It is a national disgrace and profoundly insulting that the UK government which is supposed to protect the UK citizens rights etc., is subject to laws and legal decisions by a FOREIGN country!

“They cannot bear the thought that the UK out of the EU can make a success of being a free, sovereign, and democratic nation again”

Don’t believe me, work it out for yourself! ALL glitches between the UK and the EU due to BREXIT are entirely due to EU spite and dog in the manger attitude to the UK’s departure. They cannot bear the thought that the UK out of the EU can make a success of being a free, sovereign, and democratic nation again.

Even Angela Merkel endorsed Brexit when she said, “Post-Brexit Britain will be a potential competitor to the European Union alongside China and the United States”. Angela Merkel obviously had more common sense than you. She recognised that while Britain is/was in the EU the EU could screw Britain to such an extent in their favour, particularly for France and Germany, that Britain would not be a potential threat to their economies! You, and the Conservative government are obviously either don’t recognise that or, want it to happen by retaining the myriad laws imposed upon us by the EU!

Yours faithfully

J G Wraith

Information request to Sir Ed Davey asking about LibDem plans to re-join the EU.

A letter from Jeremy Wraith to Sir Ed Davey asking about their plans to re-join the EU.

Sir Ed Davey
Leader
Liberal Democrat Party

“Leaving the EU has saved us at least £10 to 12 billion/year in EU budget contributions. Only half of which we got back, AND we were told by the EU how to spend it!”

Dear Sir Ed Davey,

You and the Liberal Democrat Party apparently want to reverse the democratically elected decision on Brexit, the reason, or reasons for which are not obvious. So, please explain, as a Freedom of Information request, why you and your party think re-joining the EU would be best for Britain, bearing in mind the following costs associated with our 47-year membership of the EU. 

  1. Leaving the EU has saved us at least £10 to 12 billion/year in EU budget contributions. Only half of which we got back, AND we were told by the EU how to spend it! The total thrown away on nett EU budget contributions has currently cost us over £300 billion.
    So why do you want to throw away £billions more to our competitors in the EU?
  2. When we joined the EEC in 1973, we had a virtually zero balance of payments (BOP) with the EEC. From day 1 the EEC/EU took over all our trade policy as they believed they were more “competent”! As a result, after 47 years trading with the EEC/EU our total BOP is now a DEFICIT (LOSS) costing us well over £2 trillion. Is that such a good deal?
    So, why do you want to give the EU the right to run our trade again and make our BOP even worse?
    (NB Over the same period we made a SURPLUS, on our trade with the rest of the world. This surely proves where our best interests are!)
  3. In addition, being in the EU when we left could have cost our economy well over £200 billion/annum. The total accumulated cost of being in the EEC/EU for 47 years could have cost our economy well over £13.22 TRILLION.
    So, why do you want to re-join the EU and make us pay even more every year as the EU imposes even more regulations on us, which we have absolutely no say or control over?
  4. We also lost over £100 billion in our fishing rights which were taken over by the EU.
    So why are you so keen to destroy our fishing industry again, and destroy the livelihoods of our fishermen and great fishing ports like Brixton, Grimsby and Hull?
  5. The next generation of UK taxpayers were liable to bail out EU pensioners due to the 32++ TRILLION EURO black hole looming in their pay as you go pensions.
    So, why do you want to saddle the next generation of UK taxpayers with the probability of horrendous costs of supporting EU pensioners?
  6. A report by Bob Lyddon, of Lyddon Consulting Services Limited and published by the Bruges Group as “The UK’s liabilities to the financial mechanisms of the European Union” shows that the EU’s financial institutions can call on the UK to contribute up to nearly £1 trillion in the event of a financial crisis. In addition, the EU can call for “extraordinary support” above that!

So, why do you want to saddle UK taxpayers with the liability of supporting bankrupt EU countries like Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Portugal and their banks when they go bust?

“Even Angela Merkel endorsed Brexit when she said, “post-Brexit Britain will be a potential competitor to the European Union alongside China and the United States”

Don’t believe me, work it out for yourself! ALL glitches between the UK and the EU due to BREXIT are entirely due to EU spite and dog in the manger attitude to the UK’s departure. They cannot bear the thought that the UK out of the EU can make a success of being a free, sovereign, democratic nation again. Even Angela Merkel endorsed Brexit when she said, “post-Brexit Britain will be a potential competitor to the European Union alongside China and the United States”. Angela Merkel recognised that while Britain is/was in the EU the EU could screw Britain to such an extent in their favour, particularly for France and Germany, that Britain would not be a potential threat to their economies! By trying to take us back in – despite the referendum result and that 80% of MPs undertook to get Brexit done – suggests that you also hold democracy in contempt.

I look forward to your reply in due course.

Yours faithfully

J G Wraith

Prime Minister: WHY IS NET ZERO BEING CONTINUED?

WHY IS NET ZERO BEING CONTINUED?

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the The Prime Minister asking ‘Why is net zero being continued?’

“More CO2 means more and greener vegetation. Commercial growers increase CO2 levels in their greenhouses to increase plant growth”

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

Dear Prime Minister

WHY IS NET ZERO BEING CONTINUED?

“Climate Change” is being blamed on human production of CO2 or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). This is obviously an outrageous and dangerous lie as shown below.

CO2 FACTS

  • The earth produces CO2 naturally. 140 million years ago the CO2 level in the earth’s atmosphere was 2,500 ppm (parts/million).
  • CO2 is essential for life on earth.
  • If the CO2 level falls below about 150 ppm plant life cannot exist. Hence, all animal and human life will expire with it.
  • More CO2 means more and greener vegetation. Commercial growers increase CO2 levels in their greenhouses to increase plant growth.
  • Global CO2 level in 1850, beginning of the industrial revolution was 280 ppm.
  • Global CO2 level in 2021 was 410 ppm.
  • Hence, total increase of CO2 over that period, natural and man made, was 130 ppm.
  • 130 ppm increase over 171 years gives an average annual increase of 0.76 ppm.
  • Mankind is responsible for about 3% of that annual increase, or approx. 0.02 ppm.
  • There are about 200 countries in the world. This gives an average of 0.0001 ppm/country/annum! This gives some idea of the small quantities of CO2 involved, even on a global scale.

HENCE: Based on these average numbers it will take:

EACH COUNTRY 10,000 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm/YEAR  TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!

  • However, some countries produce far more CO2 than the average. 70% of annual global CO2 emissions are produced by China, the USA, the EU, India, Russia and Japan combined.
  • The UK produces only 1% of total man made annual CO2 or 0.0002 ppm.

HENCE: Based on these average numbers it will take;

“to avoid adding 1 ppm to the worlds CO2 level over the next 1,560 years the UK’s Conservative government, (supported by the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties) is….”

THE UK 5,000 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm CO2 TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!

  • However, the CO2 level was possibly rising faster more recently than the average, perhaps about 2.13 ppm between 2021 and 2022.
  • The man made element of that would be 3% or 0.064 ppm of which the UK’s contribution to that at 1% would be 0.00064 ppm.
  • So, even taking one extreme result for CO2 increase it will still take:

THE UK 1,560 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm CO2 TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!

“Threatening to fine objectors £15,000 with a possible 12 month jail sentence if they refuse entry AND legalising the use of brute force by fitters and the police”

  1. Banning the use of our diesel and petrol cars by 2035.
  2. Making us buy EV’s at a much higher cost and which are liable to burst into flames if their batteries get wet or damaged. (EV cars have numerous other disadvantages)
  3. De-carbonising the national grid which National Grid (NG) estimates will cost £3 trillion to decarbonise the Grid alone – by 2035 – i.e. at an average cost of around £120,000 per household – to which must be added the cost for industry, transport and agriculture.
  4. Banning the use of our efficient gas boilers and making us buy inefficient heat pumps at great expense.
  5. Making our homes unusable and un-sellable by insisting on unreasonably high and extremely expensive insulation properties.
  6. Decimating our power supplies by abolishing coal fired power stations.
  7. Relying for our electricity supply on unreliable and costly wind and solar farms which require substantial subsidies to be paid by UK consumers. All fossil fuelled and nuclear stations will have been decommissioned by 2035 and the national grid will be unable to meet the additional load of millions of EV chargers and heat pumps. By then the Grid will be almost totally dependent on solar and wind power – when on some days the output from those sources is less than 1GW, i.e. 2% of grid maximum demand – a demand which is expected to reach around 90GW by 2035.
  8. Making householders install smart gas and electricity meters, so that they can be switched off when electricity supplies are overloaded. It will also enable the supply companies to charge exorbitant prices during periods of high demand.  NB The use of these meters on householder’s health, (due to high energy pulses they emit) is highly suspect and has not been adequately investigated and proved safe by the authorities.
  9. Threatening to fine objectors £15,000 with a possible 12 month jail sentence if they refuse entry AND legalising the use of brute force by fitters and the police to make householders let smart meters be installed.
  10. Forming “15 minute” cities and severely restricting residents and visitors rights to travel and move around their cities.
  11. Banning practically all air travel and preventing people from enjoying foreign holidays and seeing their families based abroad.
  12. Severely taxing air travel to put people off from taking holidays abroad.
  13. Scrapping good farmland to re-wild it!
  14. Putting taxes on meat to encourage people to eat bugs.
  15. The key materials needed to meet net zero, range from copper, aluminium, nickel and silicon to rarer metals such as lithium All of which require substantial increases in their production to produce the quantities required for the expected demand in 2035.
  16. The irony is that increasing CO2 greens the planet more: which will increase the global plant life, which will increase the uptake of CO2 by the vegetation and produces more Oxygen!
  17. Paying £billions of UK taxpayers money to UN carbon funds and paying “reparations” to other countries for “polluting” the earth with CO2 during the industrial revolution and afterwards. A totally despicable lie as adding CO2 from 1800 to the present day has had a negligible effect on global warming, (see Figs below).

So, to avoid adding 1 ppm to the worlds CO2 level over the next 1,560 years the UK’s Conservative government, (supported by the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties) is;

“ALREADY donated $2 billion of our, taxpayers’ money to the UK climate change fund. Was that penance payment REALLY just for adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years?”

NB In fact, of the total 130 ppm increase in CO2 between 1850 and 2021 the 3% man made element was only 3.9 ppm. Of that the UK contribution of approximately 1% was 0.039 ppm over 171 years.

Yet you, Mr Sunak, have ALREADY donated $2 billion of our, taxpayers’ money to the UK climate change fund. Was that penance payment REALLY just for adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years?

ALL THAT AND MORE TO PREVENT THE UK ADDING 1 ppm CO2 TO THE WORLDS CURRENT TOTAL OF 400 ppm OVER THE NEXT 1,560 YEARS, WHEN DOUBLING THE CO2 LEVEL FROM 400 to 800 ppm MAKES A NEGLIGIBLE CHANGE TO GLOBAL WARMING!

Hence, in view of the above I would like to ask you to justify WHY each of the points listed above are required and WHY:

  1. You still insist on applying “net zero” when it is so obviously a totally unjustifiable, unattainable and horrendously expensive scam and making the UK taxpayers and residents so utterly persecuted, all for nothing.
  2. You gave away $2 billion of taxpayers money to the UN for just adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years when doubling the global CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm has a negligible effect on global warming.

Please treat this as a Freedom of Information request.

Yours faithfully

J G Wraith

FoI to The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

“Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, “donated” $2 billion of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund during his visit to the G20 summit in India recently. Please justify”

To the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero,
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
1 Victoria Street, Westminster
SW1H OET                                                        

16th September, 2023

Dear Ms Couthino

Freedom of Information Request – UK Net Zero

I believe that the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, “donated” $2 billion of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund during his visit to the G20 summit in India recently. Please justify and explain why he did this when he had no authority to do so from the UK public and UK taxpayers and;

  1. We have hundreds of schools plus an unknown number of hospitals, museums, libraries etc., which are unsafe due to crumbling concrete construction.
  2. Jeremy Hunt, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that there was no money to repair the schools, so all school repairs would have to be paid out of the existing education budget.
  3. Why you, and the Conservative Party, have completely ignored the data provided by Professor Happer that PROVES adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has an imperceptible effect on global warming.
  4. So where did the £1.6 billion taxpayers money come from and why was it thrown away on a completely spurious and un-necessary fund when our schools, hospitals etc., have to be repaired at great cost to the UK taxpayers?
  5. That AGW climate change is a total scam, has never been agreed to by the UK public and taxpayers nor has any liability for global warming as such been fully justified by the government and accepted by the general public as it is a completely spurious and untrue concept.
  6. Why a policy of net zero is being actively pursued by the Conservative government, (despite our leaving the EU which imposed it), which is crippling us now and will cripple the UK and all it’s population for years to come, when the UK’s contribution to global CO2 production will take over 1,500 YEARS TO ADD 1 ppm TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT EVEN DOUBLING THE CURRENT CO2 LEVEL TO OVER 800 ppm HAS AN IMPERCEPTIBLE EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR HAPPER?
  7. Why I am now liable to a £15,000 fine and 12 months prison sentence for denying climate change, according to Rishi Sunak!! 

Yours faithfully

J G Wraith

An irrefutable claim for AGW Climate Change

It could take 1,800 years for the UK to add 1ppm of CO2 to the global total.  Bear that in mind when you realise that even doubling the global CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm has very little effect on global warming!

By Jerry Wraith

The AGW (anthropogenic global warming) claims for causing Climate Change are continually being promoted by many institutions, including the IPCC, the media, (BBC, Sky TV, The Guardian for example), and politicians. The UK is being subjected to crippling costs due to scrapping coal fired power stations (at the EU’s demand) and trying to replace them with renewable forms of energy. This is costing a fortune for UK taxpayers as renewables are unreliable, very expensive and demand huge subsidies. They also demand reliable back-up systems when the “wind don’t blow” and “the sun don’t shine”! In addition, our petrol and diesel fuelled cars are being banned in favour of EV’s which again raise horrendous operational problems.

“the warming effect of CO2 at the pre-industrial level of 300ppm to the warming effect at today’s level of about 400ppm is practically indiscernible”

The figures below are copied from a lecture given by Dr Tom Sheahan: 
(Full Lecture)

The graph above shows that increasing CO2 levels from 50ppm to 800ppm has very little effect on global warming. The graph below defines the effect on global warming due to increasing levels of CO2 more clearly. The most significant points are the warming effect of CO2 at the pre-industrial level of 300ppm to the warming effect at today’s level of about 400ppm is practically indiscernible. This proves beyond any doubt that increasing CO2 by 100ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature.

The above graph is based on calculations by van Wijngaarden and Happer. Their calculations are compared to real measurements as shown in the graph below.

” the IPCC climate models are grossly inaccurate as their calculated global temperature rise, due to increasing CO2, is over 3 to 5 times, average 3.5 times) the actual recorded results”

NOW look at the graph below, comparing IPCC calculations with measured results (copied from “There Is No Climate Crisis” by David Craig, published by The Original Book Company in 2021.)

This clearly proves that the IPCC climate models are grossly inaccurate as their calculated global temperature rise, due to increasing CO2, is over 3 to 5 times, average 3.5 times) the actual recorded results. The IPCC is therefore a completely disreputable organisation and must be completely ignored. This has been confirmed by Professor Chris Holland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research who said:

“The data doesn’t matter. We are not basing our recommendations on the data. We are basing them on the climate models.”

In addition, Ottmar Edenhofer, previous Co-Chairman of the IPCC Working Group 111 “Mitigation of Climate Change” has apparently also completely destroyed the case for AGW by saying:

“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” (My highlighting.)

The UK’s contribution to increasing CO2 can be estimated as follows:

Here’s a chart of atmospheric CO2 levels:

This shows that in 1980 global CO2 was 330ppm. This increased to 390ppm in 2010. This means that global CO2 increased by 55ppm in 30 years, or by 55/30 = 1.8ppm/year of which humans provided 3% or 0.055ppm/year. The UK is generally recognised as providing only 1% of the total human contribution to CO2 or 1/100 x 0.055 = 0.00055ppm/annum.

Hence to ADD 1ppm to the global CO2 total will take the UK 1/0.00055 or 1,800 YEARS!

For this our politicians are ruining the economy of the UK for a TOTALLY WORTHLESS EXERCISE. Made much worse by the FACT that CO2 has a trivially negligible effect on global warming at these concentrations!

Finally, it should be noted that NASA admitted that CO2 has a negligible effect on climate warming. See the Natural News article by Ethan Huff, dated Fri, 30 Aug 2019. 

SO

are you going to believe calculations based on the real facts which give good results with the real world,

OR

are you going to believe IPCC calculations, which are artificially produced and bear little or no relation to the real world to bolster their politically motivated case that increasing man made CO2 is having a catastrophic warming effect on the earth’s climate?

“the stupid Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy “provided £1,173,666.21 (excl. VAT) of taxpayer’s money to the contractor responsible for delivering the ongoing UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the 2021/2022 financial year”

COMMENTS

1 Talking of reparations for third world countries is a ridiculously ludicrous idea as any increase in the worlds CO2 due to our industrial revolution has a vanishingly small effect on global warming.

2 Promoting Climate Change (meaning AGW induced Climate Change) is totally FAKE propaganda. As confirmed in the quotes above.

3 Using CO2 levels to debate Climate Change is a worthless exercise as CO2 makes a vanishingly small effect on global warming. Especially, as the UK produces only 1% of the world’s 3% annual human production of CO2. YET the stupid Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy “provided £1,173,666.21 (excl. VAT) of taxpayer’s money to the contractor responsible for delivering the ongoing UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the 2021/2022 financial year. The outputs of this work included providing the data for the 2020 “UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, and a number of other products”. What a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money!

4 REDUCING CO2 IS PROBABLY HAVING THE OPPOSITE EFFECT TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE WORLDS POPULATION! IF CO2 LEVEL GETS TOO LOW ALL WORLD VEGETATION WILL DIE AND MANKIND WITH IT! MORE CO2 INCREASES WORLD GREENING AND PLANT GROWTH! (Proven by satellite observations and greenhouse use of CO2.

5 Dr Sheahan also makes the point that Methane, CH4 and Nitrous Oxide, N2O are also insignificant with regard to global warming and even less effective than the vanishingly small effect of CO2.

6 Earth’s climate is changing and has always changed, but this has virtually nothing to do with CO2 which is a trace gas in the earth’s atmosphere. The climate changes are due to the sun and the earths eccentric orbit round the sun. See the article “The woman who could cancel net zero” by Iain Hunter in The Conservative Woman, Dec 22, 2022.

7 The true purpose of the IPCC is to transfer wealth from developed nations to undeveloped nations and form a global government. (The campaign about CO2 is just a smoke screen. Whether CO2 can warm the atmosphere is irrelevant.) The plan was allegedly set out in clause 38 of the draft treaty put to the IPCC conference in Copenhagen 2009. It stated that the new global government will have three basic pillars: Government; Facilitative Mechanism; and Financial Mechanism. It will be ruled by the Conference of the Parties (IPCC) and managed by the support staff of the IPCC.

“UK taxpayers must be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want the UK economy, and their personal well being destroyed for the purposes of this global government.”

CONCLUSION It is astonishing that UK politicians, now paid £84,144/annum + expenses, by UK taxpayers are

SO INCREDIBLY DECEITFUL

as to base policy, costing UK taxpayers £trillions and ruining the economy of the UK, on eliminating a problem THAT DOES NOT EXIST! The IPCC is clearly a political project, not a technical one, therefore politicians and councillors, must pay the price. So, the UK taxpayers must be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want the UK economy, and their personal well being destroyed for the purposes of this global government.

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

So why do some people want to stay in the EU?

By Jerry Wraith

1 INTRODUCTION

The most important issue about BREXIT was that no-one could precisely predict how well or badly the UK would do after BREXIT as it was all in the future. The “Remainers” continually talked about damage to the UK economy, lost trade, influence, etc. but could not substantiate any of these claims with facts. However, because we had already been in the EEC/EU for over 40 years the “leavers” had plenty of facts to prove what a total political and economic disaster membership of the EU had been for the UK. Thankfully the general public saw through the wild claims made by the Remainers and voted to leave. 

“it is time to summarise the horrendous costs of being in the EU and how the EU has systematically fleeced the UK, and its taxpayers, over the period of the UK’s membership”

Unfortunately, since then the substantial benefits of Brexit have not been pursued actively enough to convince the remainer fraternity how much better off we could and should be. Even now, groups of people are still agitating for the UK to re-join the common market, and even to re-join the EU. The Liberal Democrats even has a policy to re-join the EU, despite the overwhelming democratic vote to leave in 2016. Why these rejoiners wish to re-join the undemocratic, un-economic EU is an absolute mystery!

Hence, it is time to summarise the horrendous costs of being in the EU and how the EU has systematically fleeced the UK, and its taxpayers, over the period of the UK’s membership to enlighten them.

2 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS AND FUTURE COSTS OF BEING IN THE EU 2.1 PREVIOUS COSTS

2.1.1 COST OF CUSTOMS UNION UP TO AN EXTRA £1,000 to £2,700/YEAR/HOUSEHOLD?

NB In 2014 UK exporters to the EU saved just under £80/household in import duties. Yet in 2014 it cost UK householders up to an extra £1,000 to £2,700/household because the UK was in the EU! A bad deal for UK householders and taxpayers.

2.1.2 TRADING WITH THE EEC/EU SINCE 1973 to 2021: DEFICIT OF £2.07 TRILLION NB Trading with the rest of the world from 1973 to 2021: SURPLUS of £850 billion! 2.1.3 ANNUAL COST OF BEING IN THE EU CURRENTLY £221 BILLION? 2.1.4 POSSIBLE COST OF BEING IN THE EU FOR 45 YEARS £13.22 TRILLION 

2.1.5 TOTAL CURRENT COST TO 2021 OF UK NETT BUDGETARY PAYMENTS TO THE EU:  £343 BILLION

NB This vast total cost all had to be borrowed and must currently cost the UK nearly £9 billion/annum in interest charges on this cost alone, which does NOT include the annual interest charges on the cost of borrowing all the annual sums.

2.1.6 CURRENT LIABILITY OF BEING IN THE EU UP TO £441 BILLION EUROS 2.1.7 LOSS OF FISHING RIGHTS SINCE JOINING £100 to £150 BILLION 2.2 EXTRA FUTURE COSTS ON RE-JOINING THE EU

2.2.1 SUPPORTING THE FUTURE COST, €32 TRILLION, OF PAY AS YOU GO EU PENSIONS

2.2.2 COST OF CONVERTING FROM POUNDS TO EUROS: £53 BILLION? 2.2.3 SUPPORTING BANKRUPT EU COUNTRIES: ITALY, SPAIN, PORTUGAL 3 COST OF CUSTOMS UNION UP TO AN EXTRA £2,700/YEAR/HOUSEHOLD?

3.1 It was claimed during the referendum campaign and elsewhere that being in the customs union cost the average household up to an extra £1,000/annum. This figure was referred to by Tim Congdon on page 30 in his 2013 report “How much does the European Union cost Britain?”  and comes from an OECD report quoted by Booker and North in their book “The Mad Officials”.

NB Sir Patrick Minford later claimed, (Sunday Express, 25th March 2018) that leaving the Customs Union would save the UK £80 billion/annum. This is equivalent to £2,700/household.)

3.2 Congdon later quotes on page 25 of his 2015 report that resource misallocation costed over 3.25% of GDP. Currently GDP is approximately £2 trillion. Hence 3.25% of this is £65 billion or about £2,170/household. Congdon states on page 16 of the report, referred to above, that the average British household “pays” the EU £750/year as a direct fiscal cost to finance the UK’s contribution to the EU budget.

3.3 These extra costs must hurt poorer households, the Labour Party’s traditional support base, the most. So why does the Labour Party support staying in the EU and making their supporters suffer so much?

3.4 The only conceivable benefit for being in the EU is that by belonging to the tariff free customs union UK exporters saved, about 1% on EU import duties, Ref 3.1.

3.5 In 2014, the amount saved on import duties by UK exporters was about 1% or less than £3 billion at £2.28 billion. This amounted to about £76 for each UK taxpayer.

3.6 So the Labour Party, which is partly funded by the trade unionists political levy, is expecting their members (there are 7 million trade unionists) to pay an extra £1,000/head/annum (or £2,700/head?) to save UK exporters to the EU on average just £76/head/annum. Not a good deal for UK households and trade unionists!

3.7 The EU is a Customs Union. This means that goods produced by EU countries are protected by imposing tariffs on goods imported from outside the EU. The EU tariff on dairy products is particularly high, (probably to protect inefficient French farmers) at 35.4%. This hit

the UK hard as much of the UK’s food is imported. It also hit New Zealand very hard as the UK was New Zealand’s prime importer of New Zealand butter and lamb. Some EU tariffs on non-EU imported goods are listed in Figure 3.1 derived from Ref 3.2. 

3.8 So, why is the UK in the EU at all? Clearly big UK business exporters to the EU can save, on average, £75/head on EU tariffs. This means more money for their shareholders, directors etc. These same businesses probably fund the LibLabCon political parties and tell them what to do. Is this why the UK is in the EU, despite the huge costs to the UK economy and its citizens and taxpayers?

FIGURE 3.1 EU TARIFFS ON NON-EU IMPORTED GOODS

While the UK is a member of the EU, there are no tariffs on trade with other EU member states. Goods imported into the EU from non-EU countries pay the EU’s common external tariff unless there is a free trade agreement or preferential trade agreement. The tariff rate differs between different goods. While on average EU tariffs are low, they are high for some products, especially agricultural products. The trade weighted average EU tariff for non-agricultural products was 2.3% in 2014 and 8.5% for agricultural products. The table below gives a breakdown by type of product. 

WTO, World Tariff Profiles 2017, pg. 82 Average EU tariff by product type (%) 

  • Animal products 15.7 
  • Dairy products 35.4 
  • Fruit, vegetables and plants 10.5 
  • Coffee, tea 6.1 
  • Cereals and preparations 12.8 
  • Oilseeds, fats and oils 5.6 
  • Sugars and confectionery 23.6 
  • Beverages and tobacco 19.6 
  • Cotton 0.0 
  • Other agricultural products 3.6 
  • Fish and fish products 12.0 
  • Minerals and metals 2.0 
  • Petroleum 2.5 
  • Chemicals 4.5 
  • Wood, paper etc 0.9 
  • Textiles 6.5 
  • Clothing 11.5
  • Leather, footwear etc 4.1
  • Non-electrical machinery 1.9
  • Electrical machinery 2.8 
  • Transport equipment 4.3 
  • Other manufactures 2.6 
  • Source: WTO World Tariff Profiles 2017, p82

Ref 3.1 House of Commons Library, “The economic impact of EU membership on the UK”, Standard Note SN/EP/6730, September 2013. (Quoted in Brexit Magazine No 2, published by the Better Off Out Campaign.) Ref 3.2 House of Commons Briefing Paper, Number 7581, 4 July 2018, “Statistics on UK-EU Trade” by Matthew Ward.

“only a relatively small portion of our economy is tied to trade with the rapidly diminishing market, which is the EU, the fact is, that trading with the EEC/EU since 1973 has currently, in 2021 figures, resulted in the UK building up a £2.07 trillion deficit”

4 TRADING WITH THE EEC/EU SINCE 1973 TO 2021: DEFICIT OF £2.07 TRILLION

4.1 Remainers continually claimed that we must stay in the single market or there would be a disastrous effect on our economy due to loss of trade etc., with the EU.

4.2 Apart from the fact that only a relatively small portion of our economy is tied to trade with the rapidly diminishing market, which is the EU, the fact is, that trading with the EEC/EU since 1973 has currently, in 2021 figures, resulted in the UK building up a £2.07 trillion deficit, see APPENDIX 4.1. (In addition, there are vast overhead costs due to being in the EU. This is discussed in para 5 below).

4.3 This figure represents the current cost, in 2021 values, of the total balance of trade with the EEC/EU since we joined in 1973. It clearly demonstrates how much better it has been for the EU by the UK being in the EU than the other way round and why the EU is so antagonistic about BREXIT.

4.4 Over roughly the same period the current balance of trade with the rest of the world (ROW) was a surplus of £850 billion i.e., a third of our current national debt! See APPENDIX 4.1.

4.5 The Treasury claimed that BREXIT and coming out of the EU with no deal or a bad deal would cost our economy up to 8% loss in GDP in 2025 or thereabouts. However, this figure was probably engineered to support “Project fear” as the European Research Group (ERG) supported the Economists for Free Trade estimate of an £80 billion boost the UK economy over 5 years.

4.6 Trade is a complicated subject, and we import goods from the EU to make things that sell in  the EU and the ROW etc., but Joe Public the voter, can surely appreciate the difference  between a surplus, (PROFIT), of £850 billion trading with the ROW and a deficit, (LOSS), of  £2.07 trillion trading with the EU. Unfortunately, the Labour, Lib Dem parties, far too many Conservatives and delusional remainers apparently can’t!

4.7 Furthermore, the free trade deal with the EU cost the UK taxpayer £billions every year due to lost income from UK import duties on their larger exports to the UK. In addition, import duties paid by UK taxpayers on non-EU goods imported into the UK was lost to the UK treasury as it was claimed by the EU as an EU “own resource”.

NOTES:

4.10 Being in the EU since 1973 has been a 45 year “investment” for the UK. It is relatively pointless just looking at the results for I, 2 or even 5 years. We need to see how good or bad this investment has been for the UK over the whole period.

4.11 Furthermore it is necessary to correct all the figures to the present day. This means that they can all be added up on the same basis. 

4.12 I am satisfied that the University of Illinois web site “measuringworth.com” using the “project function” is acceptable for this correction exercise. Some years ago, I was not aware of the website and calculated the total current BoT total from 1973 to 2009 of all the BoT figures. I used the BoE annual interest rates and calculated the interest on the balance annually, in a manner similar to mortgage payments. The total I got using this method was £930 billion compared to the University of Illinois result of £914 billion.

4.13 Please note that although the UK has built up such a large deficit with the EU the actual exports to the EU have not been discussed. The point is that the UK gains no advantage in trade by being in the EU, (see below) and has made a surplus trading with the ROW. Hence UK exports to the EU, although important, would probably have been much better if the UK was OUTSIDE the EU.

4.14 The UK’s export performance would also be even better if many UK industries had not been decimated by EU diktats and by the EU making UK industries move their businesses to other EU countries. Some of these are listed in APP 4.2.

4.15 The adverse effect of being in the EU is clearly demonstrated by the graph in APPENDIX 4.3 which clearly shows how membership of the EU has severely blighted UK trading results since 1973.

4.16 Further proof of the wholly pointless effect of being in the EU “for trade” is clearly proven by Michael Burrage in his report “Where’s the Insider Advantage?” published by Civitas. I have copied an appendix from his report as Appendix 4.4. 

4.17 From Burrage’s report the following facts can be established;

The table in Appendix 4.4 lists the top 35 fastest growing exporters of goods to the 11 founding members of the EU’s single market between 1993 and 2011. The table is taken from the report “Where’s the insider advantage”? by Michael Burrage, published by the think-tank Civitas, except for the fourth column which has been added by this author. It proves beyond any doubt that;

• it was NOT necessary to be a member of the EU to access the EU single market and export successfully to the EU

• it was NOT necessary to have a trade agreement with the EU to export successfully to the EU and,

• the USA, China and Russia are the top three largest non-EU trading partners of the EU, none of which have trade agreements with the EU or membership in the EU single market. They trade based on the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

• Hence the UK did NOT NEED TO BE IN THE EU to trade with the EU or with other countries.

 This is a complete contradiction of the UK government position

Even worse, all the countries associated in any way with the EU through membership (UK) or EFTA (Norway, Switzerland,) are generally not doing as well in their export performance to the EU as many countries outside the EU.

In his report2, Burrage importantly concludes that;

There is no case that EU membership is good for UK exports or foreign direct investment

• The fact that the UK was the second largest net contributor to the EU’s budget clearly did not grant us any favours when it comes to exports to the EU.

• The UK has not had a balance of trade surplus in goods since 1981, after just 8 years of joining the EEC. (Due partly or mainly to being in the EU?)

• Even if it is claimed that our poor trading performance was not entirely due to being in the EU it is abundantly obvious that being in the EU did not in any way help to prevent it.

• Furthermore, out of the EU, the UK must be in a much stronger exporting position with the rest of the world (ROW) without the enormous overhead cost (£200+ billion/pa) of being in the EU.

Hence being OUTSIDE the EU the UK should also increase its exports to the EU!

APPENDIX 4.1

TOTAL ANNUAL BALANCE OF TRADE (£ BILLIONS) BETWEEN UK THE EU AND THE REST OF THE WORLD (ROW) CORRECTED TO 2021 FIGURES

YEARUK/EU2021ACCUM YEARUK/ROW2021ACCUM 
 BoT    BoT   
1972000 1972000 
1973-1.674-47.48-47.48 19730.67819.2319.23 
1974-2.592-64.9-112.38 1974-0.59-14.774.46 
1975-2.831-57.07-169.45 19751.30826.4130.87 
1976-2.536-42.95-212.4 19761.76429.8160.68 
1977-2.215-32.17-244.57 19772.26832.9793.65 
1978-2.92-36.41-280.98 19784.04350.37144.02 
1979-2.995-31.46-312.44 19792.54226.68170.7 
19800.8157.28-305.16 19802.02818.13188.83 
19811.69413.55-291.61 19815.05440.43229.26 
19820.8135.91-285.7 19823.83627.89257.15 
19830.0410.27-285.43 19833.48823.05280.2 
1984-1.029-6.32-291.75 19842.51115.41295.61 
1985-1.496-8.39-300.14 19853.73420.87316.48 
1986-8.832-45.84-345.98 19867.96841.37357.85 
1987-12.889-60.19-406.17 19878.08637.78395.63 
1988-18.175-75.77-481.94 19881.77.09402.72 
1989-20.811-78.39-560.3 1989-1.587-5.99396.73 
1990-18.393-63.61-623.94 1990-0.353-1.22395.57 
1991-5.793-18.98-642.92 1991-2.161-7.08388.43 
1992-11.823-37.4-680.32 19921.695.35393.78 
1993-13.207-39.68-720 19932.4517.36401.14 
1994-12.523-35.71-755.71 199410.10428.81429.95 
1995-12.5-33.95-789.66 19959.60826.1456.05 
1996-5.485-13.96-803.62 19961.2963.31459.36 
1997-4.845-11.8-815.42 19975.34913.01472.37 
1998-5.923-13.74-829.16 1998-2.032-4.64467.73 
1999-11.5-25.57-854.73 1999-3.4-7.56460.17 
2000-8.1-17.09-871.82 2000-10.1-21.3438.87 
2001-15.9-32.26-904.08 2001-8-16.23422.64 
2002-27.7-53.92-958 2002-3.6-7.01415.63 
2003-31.3-57.56-1015.56 20033.25.89421.52 
2004-34.3-60.08-1075.64 20040.71.23422,75 
2005-36.2-59.93-1135.57 20053.45.63428.38 
2006-27.2-42.68-1178.25 2006-3.2-5.02423.36 
2007-34.7-51.15-1229.4 200734.48427.84 
2008-31.2-45.22-1274.62 2008-1.7-2.46425.38 
2009-29.3-43.6-1318.22 20096.49.52434.9 
2010-32.1-46.13-1364.35 20101.92.73437.63 
2011-23.5-32.13-1396.48 20116.79.3446.93 
2012-38.4-51.69-1448.17 201217.223.15470.08 
2013-49.1-63.45-1511.62 201325.633.08503.16 
2014-57.8-71.38-1583 201424.730.5533.66 
2015-70.6-84.53-1667.53 201540.748.73582.39 
2016-74.8-85.94-1753.47 201641.848.03630.42 
2017-69.5-76.79-1830.26 20174347.51677,93 
2018-72.4-77.15-1907.41 201844.146.99724.92 
2019-77.2-79.31-1986.72 201956.558.05782.97 
2020-49.4-53.23-2039.95 202053.757.86840.83 
2021-27.18-27.18-2067.13 20219.189.18850.01 
TOTALS-1097.5-2067.1-2067.13 TOTALS426.563850.01850.01

BoT SOURCES; 1973 to 1998 “How much does the EU cost Britain”? by G Batten

1999 to 2021 Commons Library Briefing, 3rd Dec 2021 “Statistics on UK -EU trade” CBP 7851

Correction to 2021 values using Project Comp. of University of Illinois web site measuringworth.com

“Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.

Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.

Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant”

APPENDIX 4.2

UK BUSINESSES THAT HAVE MOVED TO THE EU, POSSIBLY WITH EU GRANTS

  • Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.
  • Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.
  • Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds. Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant. British Army’s new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.
  • Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.
  • Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200. M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.
  • Hornby models gone. In fact, all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with EU grants. Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.
  • Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.
  • Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.
  • Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.
  • Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.
  • ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs
  • Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.
  • JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU ‘regeneration’ grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK taxpayer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry. UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.
  • Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.
  • Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.
  • The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online. Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not anymore, it’s Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.
  • 39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK. The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.

From a blog by Keith Sutton, 15 June 2016 (Most of these are disputed by the I love the EU fraternity).

APPENDIX 4.3

Graphs on Balance of Payments since 1945

FROM:

UK Balance of Payments

Tejvan Pettinger October 2, 2015, trade

The graph above clearly demonstrates the crippling effect of EU membership and imposed regulations on the UK’s manufacturing ability. The effect of EEC/EU regulations took a few years from 1973 to start taking effect but since 1981 the decline in UK export performance is remarkably similar to the imposition of annual EU regulations and increasing costs to the UK economy of being in the EU. No doubt other factors have played a part in the decline, but the fact remains that this is the performance of UK exporters while the UK is in the EU.

Further proof of the EU’s effect on UK trade was reported by Christopher Booker in his Sunday Telegraph column (05 Dec 2004) that even the EU admitted in its report on competitiveness that if the EU’s regulatory burden could be reduced to that of the USA, then the EU’s GDP would increase substantially.  From the EU’s figures Booker quoted that for the UK the annual cost of the EU’s regulatory burden alone was then about £100 billion/annum.

APPENDIX 4.4

TOP 35 FASTEST-GROWING EXPORTERS OF GOODS TO 11 FOUNDING MEMBERS OF THE EU SINGLE MARKET 1993–2011

Rank % growth Exports/month in 2011 Annual Cost of Being in EU

 in US $(1993) In US $bn (2011) in £ Billions (2014)

1 Vietnam 544 0.4 0 2 Qatar 496 0.3 0 3 Ukraine 446 1.1 0 4 China & Hong Kong 429 15.3 0 5 United Arab Emirates 402 2.8 0 6 Russia 377 7.8 0 7 India 367 3.4 0 8 Brazil 357 3.4 0 9 Turkey* 295 6.2 0 10 Nigeria 250 1.1 0 11 Australia 243 2.6 0 12 South Africa* 224 2.1 0 13 Chile* 198 0.6 0 14 Korea* 197 3.0 0 15 Mexico* 176 2.1 0 16 Morocco* 170 1.5 0 17 Singapore 163 2.3 0 18 New Zealand 147 0.3 0 19 Canada 142 2.3 0 20 Bangladesh 129 0.1 0 21 Bahrain 129 0.1 0 22 US 126 22.2 0 23 Switzerland* 114 11.8 ? 24 Saudi Arabia 114 2.3 0 25 Norway* 114 2.7? 26 Kenya 99 0.1 0 27 Egypt* 96 1.1 0 28 UK 81 23.9 190

29 Israel* 51 1.5 0 30 Japan 51 4.7 0 31 Taiwan 50 1.5 0 32 Iceland* 48 0.1 0 33 Thailand 48 0.9 0 34 Kuwait 21 0.3 0 35 Indonesia 12 0.6 0

Source: www.oecd-ilibrary.org.OECD database Monthly Statistics of International Trade * Countries with trade agreements with the EU.

The table above is taken from the report “Where’s the insider advantage”? by Michael Burrage, published by the think-tank Civitas, except for the fourth column which has been added by this author

5 ANNUAL COST OF BEING IN THE EU CURRENTLY £221 BILLION?

5.1 It must also be noted that being in the EU in 2014 could have cost the UK economy £190 billion/annum, (“How much does the European Union cost Britain?”, 2015 version by Prof Tim Congdon). There are obvious conclusions to be drawn from this figure:

• This is an overhead on the whole UK economy. Out of the EU this vast additional cost on the operations of our exporters and our infrastructure can be severely reduced or preferably eliminated.

• This will enable UK exporters to reduce their costs making their goods more attractive, not only to the ROW but to the EU as well.

• Without this vast EU induced overhead the UK will be able to compete for exports to the EU on the same terms as the USA, Japan, China etc. plus many other countries that are not in the EU and not subject to the EU overhead and do not even have a trade deal with the EU.

• Clearly the vast exports from the USA, Japan, China etc are all made under WTO rules and using these rules should therefore not be a problem to UK exporters who have already made a SURPLUS trading with many countries in the ROW using these rules up to 2021

• It was only recently (after 45 years of experience) that ANYONE in the government acknowledged that being in the EU cost the UK a vast amount of money. This was when Jacob Rees Mogg introduced a sunset clause for abolishing many EU imposed laws by 31st Dec 2023. This was clearly being done to benefit UK businesses.

5.2 Congdon’s figure of £190 billion/annum can clearly be argued about by other economists.  To put it into context I have plotted various cost estimates on the graph reproduced as Figure 5.1, which are discussed below.

a) The indirect costs which include the costs of applying and administering the thousands of EU Directives and Regulations imposed upon the UK public by the un-elected, un-sackable and unaccountable bureaucrats in the EU are enormous. Unfortunately, these costs are the most contentious to consider as no UK government has ever published any figures and they have all, without exception, absolutely refused to carry out an honest and meaningful cost/benefit analysis. Clearly the results would be so bad for their policy of commitment to EU membership that they would find it impossible to justify continued membership on financial terms alone.

b) Some attempts at estimating this cost for individual years have been made. The Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) has proposed a total figure of £130.6 billion for the year 2010. This figure was quoted in the Daily Express Special Edition, published on Saturday, 8th January 2011. 

c) In his booklet Batten quotes that for the year 2010 the total direct and indirect costs amounted to £77 billion by a simple summation. But Batten (GB) takes great care to point out throughout his booklet that he always used the lowest estimates of costs wherever possible to avoid being accused of bias.  Batten’s figure is considered to be far too low for the following reasons.

 d) Christopher Booker pointed out in his Sunday Telegraph column (05 Dec 2004) that even the EU admitted that for the UK the annual cost of the EU’s regulatory burden alone was about £100 billion. If one assumes that the EU regulatory burden is approximately 75% of the total annual cost of being in the EU (see Daily Express, Special Edition, 2011) then the total annual cost due to being in the EU for 2004 could  

have been, according to the EU estimate, approximately £133 billion. As this figure is derived from an EU figure it is used as a benchmark against which the estimates below can be assessed. 

e) Professor Tim Congdon (TC) recently estimated the total annual cost as £150 billion, and this is assumed to apply to 2011. See his booklet “How much does the EU cost Britain?” published in 2012, which continues the series of booklets started by Batten in 2005.

f) Professor Patrick Minford CBE, (PM) of the Cardiff Business School estimated in 2005 that being in the EU cost the UK between 11% and 38% of GDP, (see blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/09/17/Britain-leave the/euro/) he confirmed that the figures he quoted still seem to be of the right order of magnitude. So, in 2005 as the GDP was £1245 billion, he estimates the cost of being in the EU was between £137 billion to £473 billion and £160 to £545 billion in 2010.

g) These estimates are plotted on Figure 5.1 and it can be seen that Congdon’s figure of £150 billion is approximately mid-way between the EU and TPA figures. Hence, using Congdon’s result, we should have a fairly reliable figure for the annual cost to the UK economy of being in the EU of £150 billion for the year 2011. This figure equates to a cost of being in the EU of £17 million/hour, approximately equivalent to the cost of the annual salaries of 10 nurses, soldiers or policemen every minute we are in the EU!

5.2 Congdon has done further analyses of the annual cost to the UK of being in the EU. In his reports “How much does the European Union cost Britain?” he quotes £150 billion/annum for 2011 in his 2012 report, £165 to £170 billion/annum for 2012 in his 2013 report, £185 billion/annum in his 2014 report and £190 billion/annum for the year 2014 in his 2015 report. Sadly, he stopped producing these reports after that.

5.3 The annual costs he estimated rose as a % of GDP from 10% in 2011, 11% in 2012 and 12% in 2014.  So the annual cost of being in the EU was clearly rising much faster than our GDP.

5.4 Using Congdon’s figure of £190 billion/year for 2014 we can assume that the annual rate of increase for the cost of being in the EU is approximately £4.52 billion/year. Hence the total accumulated cost for the UK of being in the EU since 1973 to 2017 is calculated in APP 5.1 and this shows that the total accumulated annual cost of being in the EU from 1973 to 2017 could have currently cost the UK economy nearly £11 trillion.

NOTE: This is NOT being put forward as a definitive figure for the total cost. It is merely being added to indicate how much the UK economy could have suffered through being in the EU for 45 years due to EU over-regulation etc. All the elements that made up that cost are listed in Congdon’s reports. 

5.5 Hence all those remainers who claim the UK economy will suffer when we leave the EU are clearly unaware of the potential cost of EU membership to our economy, are lying about it or are simply ignoring it.

FIGURE 5.1 VARIOUS ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES OF BEING IN THE EU

“This shows that the total current cost of the UK’s budget payments to the EU from 1973 to2021 was £310,523 billion, or 13.7% of the UK’s current national debt of nearly £2.5 trillion”

6 TOTAL COST OF UK PAYMENTS TO THE EU BUDGETS: £ 310.5 BILLION

6.1 Since the UK joined the EU in 1973 it had to make payments into the EU annual budget.  The rates that various countries had to pay are fixed by the EU every few years. 

6.2 The total NETT contributions to the EU budget are shown in APP 6.1 below. This table is extracted from HoC Briefing Paper, Number CBP 7886, 2 February 2018 10. It shows the Net UK budget contributions from 1973 to 2017 in annual cash payment terms. 

6.3 App 6.2 below shows the same payments, but the final net budget payments are corrected to 2017 values by the HoC library. 

6.4 APP 6.3 lists the HoC budgetary payments in cash terms, corrected to 2017 values using the University of Illinois web site measuringworth.com and the Hoc 2017 values for comparison purposes. The totals of 275,449 and 198,410 respectively for the totals show a marked difference of £77,039 million due to the method of correcting the results.

6.5 In order to check these values APP 6.4 shows the calculation of three results from the years 1973, 1985 and 2000 corrected to 2017 values using the Bank of England (BoE) average interest rates for the years from 1973 to 1974 extracted from the Guardian web site, Interest Rates in the UK from 1974 and from 1975 to 2017, extracted from the BoE web site Annual Average Bank rate IUAABEDR. 

6.6 APP 6.4 shows that the 1973 net budgetary payment of £102 million in 1973 would be worth £2.813 billion in 2017 based on the interest rates from 1973 to 2017. The University of Illinois (UoI) figure is £2.538 billion and the HoC corrected figure, (see Table 3, APP 6.2) is just £1.038 billion.

Similarly for 1985, the actual cash payment of £1.808 billion is corrected to £10.356 billion, by the use of the interest rate method and to £8.68 billion by the UoI and only £4.379 by the HoC.

For the year 2000, the cash payment of £4.192 billion is corrected to £6.634 billion by the interest rate method, £7.483 billion by the UoI and £5.860 billion by the HoC.

6.7 It can be seen that the UoI figures are much closer to the actual values calculated by using the actual average annual interest rates than the HoC figures which are very much lower.  Hence it can be assumed that the UoI calculations are reasonably reliable These calculations do show categorically the relatively high levels of UK budgetary payments to the EU over its 45-year membership.

6.8 Not included in these calculations are the interest charges accruing every year on the budget payments. These annual payments all had to be borrowed as there was always an annual deficit, (apart from a small return from the EU in 1975). Allowing a very modest annual interest rate of 2.5% from 1973 to 2017 increases the current total cost to the UK of its EU budgetary payments to over £285 billion. The current annual interest on this amount at 2.5% is £7.1 billion and this must still be paid for years after BREXIT until the UK’s national debt, currently well over £2 trillion, is paid off!

6.9 As we are looking at the total costs of being in the EU from 1973 to 2021 the annual nett budgetary figures from 1973 to 2021 are re-calculated to 2021 levels in Appendix 6.5. This shows that the total current cost of the UK’s budget payments to the EU from 1973 to2021 was £310,523 billion, or 13.7% of the UK’s current national debt of nearly £2.5 trillion.

APPENDIX 6.1 ANNUAL NET CONTRIBUTIONS TO EU BUDGETS

APPENDIX 6.2 UK NET CASH CONTRIBUTION TO EU BUDGET 1973 to 2017

APPENDIX 6.3 UK NET BUDGET PAYMENTS,1973 to 2017, USING UNIV OF ILLINOIS AND HoC CORRECTIONS TO 2017 VALUES (£ millions)

APPENDIX 6.4 UK BUDGET PAYMENTS COMPARISON USING BANK of ENGLAND AVERAGE ANNUAL INTEREST RATES

APPENDIX 6.5 UK BUDGET PAYMENTS 1973 to 2021 CORRECTED TO 2021 VALUES

YEARNet Cont  from2021ACCUM Net Cont  2017ACCUM
 Table 2U of  Illinois  Table 3 
1972000 0 
197310228932893 10381038
197431776.23669.2 2721310
1975-56-11292540.2 -390920
197616728295369.2 10061926
1977369536010729.2 19523878
197882210,25020979.2 38977757
1979947994730926.2 391911676
1980706628637212.2 242914105
1981397317640388 121615321
1982606440244790 172017041
1983647427349063 173918780
1984656402853097 167720457
1985180810,11063207 437924836
1986572296966170 132526161
19871721803674206 378529946
19881362567679882 282932775
19892315872088602 446437239
19902475856197163 441841657
1991544178398946 91242569
199220306423105369 329945868
199321556467111836 341349281
199422116307118143 346052741
1995401710910129053 614058881
199623485971135024 344962330
199715973885138909 232364653
1998459710670149579 661171264
199936388090157669 518876452
200041928842166511 586082312
200113892818169329 192484236
200231396110175439 425488490
200336796766182205 486993359
200430085269187474 388497243
200535825930193404 4505101748
200639096133199537 4774106522
200746016867206404 5479112001
200832944774211178 3814115815
200943366452217630 4944120759
2010738210610228240 8288129047
2011808211220239460 8896137943
2012846711400250860 9177147120
20131046513520264380 11131158251
2014977912080276460 10224168475
201510,76312890289350 11202179677
2016962611060300410 9824189501
201789099843310253 8909198410
2018      
2019      
2020      
2021  342800   
       
       
TOTALS147,330 342,800275,450 198410
       

7 COST OF LOST FISHING RIGHTS £100 to £150 BILLION

The EEC produced at the last minute the infamous demand that UK territorial waters and its fisheries were an EEC “asset” to be administered by the EEC as a condition of entry.

Ted Heath swallowed this infamous demand virtually without a murmur, but even he was apparently apprehensive as to the large cost of the budgetary payments to the UK. To soften the blow and make it more publicly acceptable the EEC agreed to a 7year “softening up” period of the total annual cost of UK budgetary payments. 

In addition, cabinet papers revealed that on the territorial waters issue that Ted Heath, Conservative Prime Minister said words to the effect that he was “not bothered about the livelihoods of a few Scottish fishermen” if that was the price of joining the EEC! Note that the loss of UK fishing rights to the EEC/EU was apparently estimated to be costing the UK economy £2/3 billion/annum. Hence the total cost to the UK of the loss of UK fishing rights is well over £100 to £150 billion.

8 CURRENT LIABILITY OF BEING IN THE EU UP TO £441+ BILLION 

In the Executive Summary of his report, “Why the Eurozone’s fate makes an immediate exit vital” published by Global Britain, Bob Lyddon, of Lyddon Consulting Services Ltd., states that:

“Three years after the UK voted to leave the European Union all we have on the table is a Withdrawal Agreement and a Political Declaration that fail to end the UK’s huge contingent liabilities to the EU’s financial institutions. We do not, for example, cease to be a shareholder in the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank for at least twenty years. 

During the transition period the EU could cause the UK’s maximum contingent liability to rise from the current figure of €207 billion to €441 billion, or by even more if our exit is drawn out into the period of the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework.

Any payment the UK might make for our supposed residual liabilities will be spent immediately on other things:  who will then meet those liabilities when they fall due for payment? This all derives from near-criminal irresponsibility by the UK’s negotiators. 

For the UK the timing and terms of our withdrawal are vital: can we crystallise and then discharge our liabilities by leaving the EU completely and soon, or do we risk becoming a loss-sharing party as and when the Eurozone financial system goes off its cliff? 

This will occur at the latest in 2021 when financial markets belatedly realise that compliance with the EU Fiscal Stability Treaty is unattainable: the Debt-to-GDP ratios of Italy, Belgium, France, Cyprus, Greece and Portugal are all above 95% and only Greece has a current budget surplus.

Compliance is impossible from both an economic and political point of view.”

EXTRA FUTURE COSTS ON RE-JOINING THE EU

9 SUPPORTING COST OF EU PENSIONS OF WELL OVER 30 TRILLION EUROS

9.1 There is a massive “hole” looming in the pension funding for the next generation of workers in many EU countries according to a study commissioned by the European Central Bank. The 18 EU countries in the report compiled by the Research Centre for Generational Contracts at Freiburg University in 2009 showed that the largest pension liabilities in per cent of GDP can be found in France (362.2), Poland (361.1) and Austria (359.9), followed by Germany (329.6) and Italy (323.1). The lowest liabilities have been calculated for Lithuania (179.9) and Latvia (124.8) followed by the United Kingdom (91.2) authors Christoph Mueller, Bernd Raffelhueschen and Olaf Weddige said in the report.

9.2 The UK had one of the lowest pension rates in the EU and the lowest pension liability of those examined at 91.2% of GDP. Despite this the UK pensionable age for men is likely to rise to 68 in a few years. What does that say about the pension prospects for countries like France, Poland, Austria and Germany with pension liabilities which are over 3 times their GDP? 

9.3 Furthermore it should be noted that:

a) Only 18 EU countries were analysed in this report leaving the pension liabilities of the remainder unaccounted for.

b) All of the remaining EU countries are net beneficiaries from the EU budget c) At present there are about 4 people working for every pensioner in the UK. In the next 25 years or so this figure is expected to drop to two workers for every pensioner, thus doubling their commitment.

10 COSTS OF UK CONVERTING TO THE EURO £53 BILLION?

Tony Blair was very keen to adopt the euro when he was PM. In 2005 he said that it would probably be around 2010 before the economic conditions were right. Around that time, it was estimated that changing over to the euro as our main currency would cost, (from memory) the country about £32 billion. There have not been any recent calculations as to the cost of the change-over, even for Scotland, where Nichola Sturgeon is continually whingeing about joining the EU. However, even if there were no increased costs today in changing-over converting £32 billion in 2005 to 2021 values raises the current cost to £53 billion.

11 SUPPORTING THE COST OF BANKRUPT EU NATIONS

After years of cheap lending money many EU nations built up huge debts (as did the UK). There is no doubt that if the UK re-joined the EU, it would be drawn into supporting many EU nations with debts which they cannot repay. For example, the debt to GDP ratio of many EU countries in January 2022, Q1, was as follows:

  • 1. Greece: 206.0
  • 2. Italy: 156.0
  • 3. Portugal: 134.0
  • 4. Spain: 120.0
  • 5. Cyprus: 118.0
  • 6. France: 116.0
  • 7. Belgium: 114.0
  • 8. Croatia: 88.7
  • 9. Austria: 83.9
  • 10. Slovenia: 80.8
  • 11. Hungary: 80.4
  • 12. Germany: 69.8
  • 13. Finland: 69.2
  • 14. Slovakia: 60.6
  • 15. Ireland: 59.5

A high debt-to-GDP ratio is undesirable for a country, as a higher ratio indicates a higher risk of default. In a study conducted by the World Bank, a ratio that exceeds 77% for an extended period of time may result in an adverse impact on economic growth. A study by the World Bank found that countries whose debt-to-GDP ratios exceed 77% for prolonged periods experience significant slowdowns in economic growth. Pointedly, every percentage point of debt above this level costs countries 0.017 percentage points in economic growth. This phenomenon is even more pronounced in emerging markets, where each additional percentage point of debt over 64% annually slows growth by 0.02%.

The UK’s debt in 2022 Q1 was 99.6% of GDP, which is high by accepted standards but a lot lower than many EU countries. However, the UK has never failed to repay its debts.

12 ADVANTAGES OF BEING IN THE EU

Clearly there are NO financial advantages to being in the EU as the costs involved are horrendous and there are definitely NO financial benefits to the UK’s citizens, householders and taxpayers.

However, as pointed out earlier, there are some financial benefits to the UK’s big businesses which trade with the EU. Due to being in the EU’s single market the UK could export goods to the EU with no tariffs. Again, this so called “advantage” was a big, big, disadvantage to UK taxpayers and consumers as the loss of income to the UK treasury was far greater due to the enormous negative trade gap in the UK’s trade with the EU. Thanks largely to the EU controlling all the UK’s trade. In addition, UK big business could employ armies of lobbyists to try and influence EU decisions in their favour. They could also better afford staff to ensure compliance with EU bureaucracy thereby denying smaller companies getting business for their products.

In addition, the freedom of movement within the EU, is often cited as a big advantage by EU fanatics in the UK. Unfortunately, this entails freedom of all the citizens of the EU coming to the UK as well. All 447 million of them! This includes all the criminal scum in Europe, who can come and live in the UK, be guaranteed housing, NHS facilities, schooling, benefits etc., etc., and were never in danger of being deported after being prosecuted and found guilty of their crimes in UK courts.

The usual arguments for staying in the EU are therefore pathetic and feeble. Such as, “I do not have to show my passport when travelling in Europe”, and “I can go and live in Europe”. 

Also, Lord Adonis has said that being in the EU we can benefit from their laws. Does he not realise that there are 650 MP’s who are supposed to be making laws, for the UK, which benefit the UK? A process which he as a Member of the House of Lords is party to.

COMMENTS

Even before the UK joined the EU it was made clear that the UK was going to be severely and wilfully penalised in order to favour the other EEC countries. Peter Shore, ex Labour Minister, pointed out in his book “Separate Way’s” their intentions. One would have thought that after all the enormous costs in bloodshed, destruction and finance that the UK and its Commonwealth suffered to save Europe from German and Nazi domination during two world wars, the EEC would at least ensure a fair system for the UK’s entry.

“The EEC also produced at the last minute the infamous demand that UK territorial waters and its fisheries were an EEC “asset” to be administered by the EEC. A new imposition not planted on any other nation on joining, before or since.”

NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

The EEC changed the budget contribution procedure from that based on a % of GDP to a system based on taxes based on import duties. As Peter Shore pointed out this was clearly introduced to punish the UK as the UK imported far more of its food than the other, mainly agricultural EEC countries.

The EEC also produced at the last minute the infamous demand that UK territorial waters and its fisheries were an EEC “asset” to be administered by the EEC. A new imposition not planted on any other nation on joining, before or since. Hence the EEC/EU was determined to screw the UK for all they worth right from the start.

Therefore, WHY anybody thinks that being in the EU would be to the UK’s advantage proves how delusional they were, and still are, as history underlines the fact that the UK has been screwed by the EU at every opportunity. Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason they were assiduously assisted in this by every prime minister and many LibLabCon party politicians since before we joined and for as long as we were in the EU. However, a clue as to why they were so keen to remain and even re-join the EU could be found in the following reference.

Alan Skeds paper (See Ref 12.1 below) says that the Conservative Party under Heath became a secret corporate member of Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe. The initial fee was £15,000, (equivalent to nearly half a million pounds today). According to Monnet’s chief aide and biographer, Francois Duchêne, the Labour and Liberal parties joined later.

So, it can be assumed that the LibLabCon parties have ALL been aiming to make the UK a vassal state of the United States of Europe for over 45 years and have allegedly been totally and secretly committed to: 

• Abolishing the United Kingdom as a sovereign, democratic and independent country. • Abolishing of the monarchy as our Head of State.

• Abolishing Westminster, the “Mother of Parliaments” as the governing body of the UK. • Abolishing the right of UK citizens to “hire and fire” their government and therefore disenfranchising them.

• Abolishing the right of UK citizens to call themselves, English etc. 

• Abolishing the UK armed forces and expecting the defence of the realm to be delegated to EU forces.

• Abolishing the UK’s membership of the Commonwealth

• Abolishing the UK’s right to formulate its own foreign and domestic policies. • Giving over 350 million foreigners the legal right to come and live in the UK with no controls whatsoever on how many chose to do so.

• Giving away vast amounts of UK taxpayers money to foreign agencies with little or no control over the amounts demanded.

• Giving away the UK’s territorial waters and fishing rights to the EU.

It is totally unforgiveable that Ted Heath, Conservative Prime Minister, 1970 to 1974, blatantly and deliberately lied to the UK public that joining the EEC would NOT involve any loss of sovereignty, when he had either ALREADY joined Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe or was just about to. This obviously involved a total loss of sovereignty if it was achieved, which was obviously his intention. I believe that every PM since then, including Blair, John Major, Theresa May, and many MP’s have allegedly been working towards the aim of abolishing our country as an independent sovereign and democratic nation by making the UK a vassal state of the EU. Significantly, attempts to discover whether or not the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties are still in the successor to Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe have failed as there was no response from the Cabinet Office to this question!

But none of the LibLabCon parties have ever mentioned any of the above aims in any of their manifestos in any general election before, or even during, the whole time we have been in the EU. Nor have any of their treasonous policies, listed above, ever been mentioned in any of the 

Queen’s speeches on the opening of parliament. Incredibly, despite thousands of new MP’s  being elected to Parliament since 1973, never has any one of them ever made it clear to the  public the real alleged intention of their parties staying in the EU, i.e. to effectively  disenfranchise the British public and destroy the UK as an independent, sovereign and  democratic state and make the UK a vassal state of the United States of Europe. The story of the lies and deceit over the EU by the LibLabCon parties is detailed in Booker and North’s book, “The Great Deception” see Ref 12.2.

It is crystal clear that the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties not only publish pledges in their election manifestos which they fail to honour, they also more insidiously have allegedly NOT declared their secret mission to turn the UK into a vassal state of the EU. 

Hence, all three parties have allegedly lied to and deceived the UK public for over 45 years with regard to making the UK a vassal state of the EU and so the question must be asked: 

ARE THEY FIT FOR PURPOSE?

Ref 12.1 Global Britain published paper written by Prof Alan Sked titled “TIME FOR A CHANGE, British Conservatism and the politics of Brexit”

Ref 12.2 “The Great Deception” by Booker and North, published by continuum.

9 CONCLUSION

The current political party system is therefore totally corrupt and deceitful and must be swept away and replaced by a system where truth and honesty prevail.

European Court of Human Rights – Your views, Part 1

The European Court of Human Rights intervened to stop the deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda.  The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We asked your views on:  How should the government react to the ruling by the ECHR?

On to Part 2

Les Beaumont

Les Beaumont stood for the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in Pitshanger Ward, London Borough of Ealing in May’s local elections.

“Whatever the outcome, the government should withdraw from The Convention and replace the existing UK Human Rights Act, which enshrines The Convention into British law”

As a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK really has no choice but to follow The ECHR’s urgent interim measure and await its full judgement.  I’m not sure if the UK can appeal the interim order in the meantime.

Whatever the outcome, the government should withdraw from The Convention and replace the existing UK Human Rights Act, which enshrines The Convention into British law, with an Act that provides the same protections as The Convention but with the UK Supreme Court as the final arbiter.  It should also commit to enshrine any future changes to The Convention into UK law, subject to there being no jurisdictions outside the UK courts.

Having served notice of its withdrawal from The Convention, the government should urgently consider ignoring any rulings of The ECHR and rely on the rulings of the UK Supreme Court on those matters.

Brexit campaigner Georgina Guillem.

“Human Rights did not begin with the ECHR the UK has always had the reputation for setting high standards both domestically and internationally”

The ECHR has stopped the first fight of Asylum Seekers to Rwanda.  This of course should have been considered as all European institutions (EU or otherwise) will do all it can to thwart whatever the UK does to try to address this problem.  Likewise, all the do-gooders that protest.  There must be a solution to this ever-increasing problem of mostly young men arriving by boat without trying to be accepted through the right channels.  Human Rights did not begin with the ECHR the UK has always had the reputation for setting high standards both domestically and internationally.

Not to honour a treaty once signed is wrong, however the safeguard of the UK must be considered, therefore it is also wrong not to put its wellbeing first. A true Brexiteer wanted to leave the EU, all the institutions of Europe and return full sovereignty without a deal, had we done this we might not have had all this agony.  Also the Northern Ireland Mess might have been avoided.

Brexiter Jeremy Wraith who has contributed several articles to our site.

“Why did the interviewer on Sky not ask him why they did not walk into one of the British embassies in the many safe countries they crossed and ask for asylum there, France in particular?”

I watched an interview on Sky TV with the Chief Executive of the Refugee Council.  He said that the refugees have a human right to come to the UK and claim asylum here as the refugees in Palestine cannot walk into the British Embassy in Palestine to ask for asylum. Why did the interviewer on Sky not ask him why they did not walk into one of the British embassies in the many safe countries they crossed and ask for asylum there, France in particular?

I firmly believe that the UK should cancel its involvement in the ECHR as the UK is perfectly capable of defending the human rights of its own citizens.  So why are we relying on foreign bodies to dictate our human rights policies for us. 

The quicker we withdraw from many other European and EU treaties and rules the better!

“If a signatory country is prevented from deciding who can enter and, therefore, whom it can legally deport, it is no longer sovereign”

Chris Scott stood for Reform UK in the Horley Central and South Ward of Reigate & Banstead Council, in May’s local elections.

I’m no lawyer, nor even a student, so my response will be based mainly on what I’ve gleaned from media interviews and discussions since the eleventh-hour ECHR ruling on the planned Home Office deportation flight to Kigali last week.

Although there was a lack of transparency by the ECHR on which judge, or judges were hurriedly called in to rule on deportations that had just been ruled legal by our own Supreme Court – the third English court to consider the appellants’ case – I guess it was unlikely that the Home Secretary would have been prepared to flout the decision on this occasion. I wonder, however, if the Home Office lawyers were expecting it and, if so, whether Miss Patel had been warned of the probability. Flouting international law is not something one would want or expect HMG to do in haste.

The UK was, evidently, the chief author of the original convention on human rights for Europe in the aftermath of the horrific events that were revealed during and after WW2. That we should have drafted it was right and proper. We had been the only European combatant to maintain our democratic freedoms during the war and had played a major part – initially single-handed, but for the stout help of our Empire countries – in saving Europe and much of the world from tyranny.

A court, also bearing the initials ECHR, was created. But, as I understand it, the convention’s original provisions have been extended and others added to the extent that the court seems even to have become a threat to national sovereignty. If a signatory country is prevented from deciding who can enter and, therefore, whom it can legally deport, it is no longer sovereign. Based in the same campus as the European parliament in Strasbourg, one suspects that the Court’s advocates may share similar aspirations to members of the Council of Europe and Eurocrats who, for reasons of their own, wish to lessen the autonomy of the EU’s nation states.

There is, therefore, a strong argument for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR and to give precedence to a new bill of rights seven decades after we framed it. This would doubtless provoke wide international condemnation, much of it sneering and disingenuous, from countries that have in many cases come late to the table of human rights. After all, it started here in Blighty over eight centuries ago with Magna Carta. The UK should continue to hold its head high on human rights and perhaps take a new lead, as we did in 1950.

On to Part 2

Image: details, original, amended.

For All Climate Change Deniers!

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Opinion Piece by Jeremy Wraith

I have just finished re-reading Christopher Booker’s excellent book titled “The Real Global Warming Emergency”1. This book should be compulsory reading for all politicians and climate change fanatics as it describes from the IPCC’s first report, in 1990, to the Copenhagen conference, in 2009, some of the IPCC’s deceit, lies and manipulation, all aimed at promoting the fallacy that human beings are mainly responsible for catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)2. The number of professional scientists of international standing who have resigned from IPCC committees due to their adverse views being ignored or deliberately doctored in the final IPCC reports is confirmation of this.

In addition, the publicity of the lies and deceit by the IPCC resulting from the Mann “hockey stick” saga and the “climategate” emails from the discredited University of East Anglia should have also alerted everybody to the total AGW sham being perpetrated on the general public. Also, none of the doomsday predictions concerning AGW have been realised.

Despite all this evidence, the AGW sound bite that 97% of “experts” agree that global warming is mostly man made is still being repeatedly trotted out. This was based on a “review” of abstracts of 11,944 peer reviewed papers published over a 21 year period which supposedly endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW. The 11,944 papers were reviewed later by another group who established that only 0.3% of the papers reviewed actually endorsed man-made global warming as defined in the original review. This result was confirmed when 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 holding PhD’s, signed the Oregon Petition which disputed the notion of anthropogenic climate alarmism. Unfortunately, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out in 2013, a tweet claiming 97% of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” Apart from being disastrously untrue, the survey he was referring to didn’t even ask that question. So, why was the President of the most powerful nation in the world promulgating such falsehoods?

“He then claimed in a speech to business leaders that the world has only 100 months to act “before the damage caused by global warming becomes irreversible” That was in 2009, 13 years, (156 months) ago. So, why are we still getting snowfalls, cold winters and increasing ice growth in the Antarctic?”

Sadly, even Prince Charles has been guilty of spreading false claims about AGW. In 2005, (17 years ago) he said climate change should be seen as the “greatest challenge to face man” and treated as a much bigger priority in Britain. He then claimed in a speech to business leaders that the world has only 100 months to act “before the damage caused by global warming becomes irreversible” That was in 2009, 13 years, (156 months) ago. So, why are we still getting snowfalls, cold winters and increasing ice growth in the Antarctic? Yet Prince Charles was still banging the AGW drum at the 2022 COP 26 conference in Glasgow. All this coming from a man who talks to his vegetables to help their growth! He should stop making stupid political statements as he is bringing himself and the Monarchy into disrepute.

It is also ludicrous to maintain that CO2 is bad for the planet. If it falls below about 150 ppm all plant life will die and all human existence with it. In fact, CO2 levels have in centuries past been 10 times higher than today and if anything, current CO2 levels need to be increased not diminished. Currently, CO2 comprises around 400ppm of the atmosphere, which has been increasing by around 1.5ppm pa for many years. Human emissions contribute around 3% of that annual increase & the UK only emits around 1% of that 3%, i.e., 0.00045ppm pa.

“temperature – not the other way around – and that human CO2 emissions fell dramatically during Lockdown, while CO2 concentration went up. You should also know that increasing CO2 levels result in global greening”

You will be aware that over time atmospheric CO2 concentration follows global temperature – not the other way around – and that human CO2 emissions fell dramatically during Lockdown, while CO2 concentration went up. You should also know that increasing CO2 levels result in global greening, which absorbs CO2 – a feedback loop which doesn’t seem to be factored in IPCC models.

“The RAC estimates that 18 million homes can utilise off-street parking to accommodate EV charging at home. How are the “other” 7 million households going to charge their EV’s?”

Apparently, the wholesale change-over from petrol and diesel engine cars to electrically powered vehicles (EV’s) is essential to achieve the UK’s target of bringing all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. However, there are nearly 25 million dwellings in the UK 52% of which are terraced or semi-dets and 21% are flats. The RAC estimates that 18 million homes can utilise off-street parking to accommodate EV charging at home. How are the “other” 7 million households going to charge their EV’s? Has any thought at all been given to the trip hazard for the blind, disabled and elderly of live electric cables draped over the pavements, especially in wet weather?

Apparently, climate change zealots have allegedly said that all “climate deniers” should be prosecuted! I have some sympathy for that argument. However, it is the real climate deniers who should be prosecuted. They are, all those politicians, scientists, media outlets, (particularly the BBC, Sky News and the Guardian), weather forecasters and others who have prostituted their positions, training, careers and common sense to promote the seriously flawed and untrue philosophy of AGW. That is, they refuse to acknowledge that man made CO2 makes an imperceptibly small contribution to global warming. Dr Bruce C Bunker in his book “The Mythology of Global Warming”3 demolishes every claim made by the global warming zealots with facts and figures. He concludes that “the science of global warming is indeed settled”, that is;

“Gas is abundantly available in the UK, so the UK must prioritise gas production, particularly by allowing UK companies to start fracking in earnest”

GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH

For the government to swallow all the fallacious hype on climate change, let alone establish government policy on it, is totally insane. The law to achieve net zero must be repealed at once. Even optimistic estimates of the cost of reaching net-zero by 2050 show that it will cost £250 billion4.  The government’s action to reduce gas and coal consumption is therefore illogical and insane, as they are the cheapest forms of energy. Gas is abundantly available in the UK, so the UK must prioritise gas production, particularly by allowing UK companies to start fracking in earnest. Coal mines and coal fired power stations must also be prioritised together with nuclear power stations. But new nuclear stations will take some years to become more productive.

As a member of the public I have been able to satisfy myself that AGW is a total sham. The government, with all the resources at its disposal must also be very aware that AGW is a total sham. Yet they persist in promoting this fallacy and are intent on ruining the UK economy in the process for whatever reason known only to them. The UK has already suffered over 50 years of lies and deceit by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal/Lib Dem parties over the EU, so lies and deceit are their stock in trade. They have also lied and deceived us over the so-called global warming for at least 20 years and are intent on making this last at least for another 30 years and decades beyond that. Lying and deceit are these parties’ stock-in-trade. Therefore, they must NEVER be allowed to govern this country again. They are imposing a flawed strategy and an enormous burden on the sovereign people, without their consent and they must be held accountable for that.

References:

  1. “The Real Global Warming Crisis” by Christopher Booker. Quantum Books
  2. “Inconvenient Facts”, By Gregory Wrightstone, Silver Crown Productions, LLC.
  3. “The Mythology of Global Warming”, Climate Change Fiction vs. Scientific Facts by Dr Bruce C. Bunker, PhD, Moonshine Cove Publishing, LLC.
  4. “Paying for Net Zero”, by Tom Sasse, Institute for Government.